Upload
buitu
View
218
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
NCHRP Project No. 20-24 (61)
ISSUES AND PRACTICES IN PERFORMANCE-BASED MAINTENANCE
AND OPERATIONS CONTRACTING
Presentations from the Executive Forum on
Performance-Based Maintenance and Operations Contracting
Tampa, Florida
April 22-23rd, 2009
These presentations were prepared by the authors to motivate discussion among participants at a forum convened under NCHRP Project 20-24(61) Performance-Based Maintenance and Operations Management. The project was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and conducted as part of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-24. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation (DOTs). Project 20-24 is intended to fund studies of interest to the leadership of AASHTO and its member DOTs. NCHRP Project 20-24(61) was conducted by Applied Research Associates, Inc., under contract to Parsons Brinckerhoff. This document is not an official publication of the NCHRP, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, or The National Academies. The presentations contained herein represent the views of their authors only. A report of the project, prepared by the research team, is available from NCHRP.
1
Presented To Executive Forum
Tampa, Florida
April 22-23rd, 2009
NCHRP 20-24 (61)Executive Forum on Performance-Based Maintenance and Operations Practices
Draft Interim Report Overview“Setting the stage”
3
NCHRP 20-24 (61)
Convene Executive Forum
Share views & experiences
Develop strategies
4
Literature Review
Survey questionnaires
On-site & telephone interviews
5
Definition
PBMC is an approach to contracting that provides incentives/disincentives
to the contractor to achieve performance standards or targets for
measurable outcomes
6
PBMC is a shift from traditional methods-based quantity/unit price to performance outcomes and levels-of-
service.
2
7
“Perfect Storm”
Increased needs
Increased expectations
Funding limitations
Personnel shortages
8
PBMC Trends
Expanded use
Process improvements
Room for advances
9
Literature Review
Domestic
International
10
Domestic Experience
FL DOT
ODOT
TXDOT
VDOT
WSDOT
DCDOT
11
International Experience
Argentina
Australia
New Zealand
Ontario
United Kingdom
12
Contract Characteristics
Best value
Fixed- price
Multi-year (renewable)
Perform measures
Perform standards (LOS)
3
13
Contract Characteristics
14
Contract Scope
Activity Specific
Bundled Activities
Regional Activities
Corridor (fence to fence)
15
Examples of Performance Measures
Pavement Smoothness (IRI)
Signs & Striping (Retro-reflectivity)
Drainage (Flow & Structure Condition)
Guardrail (As intended/time)
16
Strengths
Supplement resources
Cost savings
Improve asset management
Reduce administrative burden
Promote innovation
17
Weaknesses
Loss of direct control
Cost & time for contract development
Long-term sustainability
Reduced competition
18
Lessons Learned
Need good performance measures
Use reasonable performance standards (LOS)
Consider and address risks
Use I/Ds that are commensurate with performance
Consider pre-qualification, QC & QA.
4
19
Surveys of Owners/Contractors
General survey
In-depth interviews (9)
Modified interviews (6)
Contractor survey
20
General Survey
34 Questions
36 States/Ontario responded
21
Categorization of Respondents
% Respondents
31
8
40
21
A B C D
Category
22
PBMC for Multiple Maintenance Activities?
% Respondents
69
31
No Yes
Category
23
Performance Standards for Maintenance Forces?
% Respondents
20
80
No Yes
Category
24
Performance Standards for Contract Items?
% Respondents
12
38
50
N/A No Yes
Category
5
25
PBMC Specific Activity?
% Respondents
27
58
15
No Yes Standard
Category
26
PBMC Region or Corridor?
% Respondents
41
49
10
No Yes Standard
Category
27
Several Reasons for Not Trying PBMC
Change in Culture
Lack of Experience
No Legal Authority
Challenges in Cost Comparison
Loss of Control
Insufficient Competition/Capacity
Encumber 5 years of funding
28
In-Depth Interviews
9 interviews
25 questions
29
Motivation to Pursue PBMC
Insufficient Staff Resources
External Political Interest
Executive Management Interest
Improved Efficiency
Reduced Cost
30
Contract Characteristics
Lump Sum
Best Value (2)
Performance-Based
Multi-Year
Incentive/Disincentives
6
31
Performance Monitoring
Require Contractor QC Plan
Define LOS Rating Process
Use Knowledgeable/Certified in-house personnel (non-biased)
Use External third party
Define frequency, reporting, response
32
Lessons Learned
Need good inventory and condition assessment
Use definitive, reasonable proven performance measures.
Do not “raise the bar” excessively in one shot.
Recognize additional costs for higher LOS
Learn from other experienced agencies
Use interim milestones and consequences
Specify how proposed innovations are approved
Plan for the unexpected
Consider incremental steps toward PBMC
Approach the contract as a partnership
Do not micro-manage the contract
33
Modified Interviews
8 questions
6 states
34
Needs to Reduce Sense of Risk
Evidence of Improved Performance
Same or Reduced Costs
Help with Developing Documents/Procedures
Concern with Loss of Direct Control
35
Survey of Contractors
11 questions
4 respondents
36
Value and Length of Contract
Dollars and cost-effectiveness varies with scope from contract to contract
A 5-year contract term should be the minimum.
Owner agency should solicit input from the industry
7
37
How Contracts Made Most Cost-Effective
Use “Best Value” selection process
Define specific, reasonable performance standards or requirements.
Establish clear, consistent performance monitoring
Allow contractors the freedom to INNOVATE
Include a broad scope of activities
Use incentives/disincentives with the ability to recoup penalties
Provide accurate asset inventory/condition baseline data
38
Include Snow & Ice Control?
3/4 said “yes”
use a “cap” and pay above the “cap”
reimburse on a prescribed fee basis
allow purchase of materials from the State contract
This should be weighted item in
technical proposal
39
Conclusions
Use of PBMC is growing worldwide
Considerable interest in pursuing PBMC among State DOTs
PBMC contracts and performance measures are evolving
Top Management Interest is Key to Initiating PBMC
Skepticism over Cost Savings
Concern over Loss of Control40
Recommended Needs
Information exchange with “model” documents
Peer-to-peer or mentor/protégé processes
Widely accepted, systematic cost comparison methodology
Efforts to improve performance measures and protocols, standards, LOS and valuation of various levels of performance
Training programs on PBMC concepts
10/1/2009
1
Georgia Department of
Transportation
Comprehensive Maintenance
Contracting Experience
BY:
Terry F. Rutledge
State Maintenance Liaison EngineerApril 23, 2009
GDOT’s CMC Experience
GDOT History
Maintains state route system only
Currently has 5400 employees
2700 +/- in Maintenance
Over 18,000 Center line miles
Includes 1,245 CLM of Interstate
15,000 Bridges
GDOT’s CMC Experience
GDOT Outsourcing History
Maintenance Resurfacing program
In mid to late 90’s in midst of down-sizing and re-organization
Interstate mowing contracts
Landscape and custodial contracts at welcome centers
Expanded w/ shoulder sweeping and drain cleaning service on
metro Atlanta interstates
GDOT’s CMC Experience
GDOT had a CMC study performed in Oct. ’05
Performed under the direction of GA Tech
RESULTS:
Cost understanding of existing maintenance management
system
Inventory and condition assessment
Determined possible savings of 0.03% for Interstate corridors
Recommended “Pilot project” for full evaluation
GDOT’s CMC Experience
Legislation called for a Performance Audit
Performed by GA Dept of Audit’s
Study was completed in Nov. ’07
Results
Continue efforts with current pilot project
Implement project if contractor’s bid indicates cost savings
GDOT already developing CMC contract – prepared to bid in 90
days
GDOT’s CMC Experience
Reviewed contracts from other states
(Florida, NC, Texas, Virginia)
Visited NCDOT for in-depth review of their implemented
contract
Began preparing contract documents
Began developing plan to inventory assets along
corridors (resource and time critical)
10/1/2009
2
GDOT’s CMC Experience
Identified possible corridors
Looked at different Interstate options
I-285 Only (Outer Perimeter)
I-285 including I-75, I-85 and I-20
Identified optional formats
Alternate bids for “with” or “with-out” snow removal
Also a “with” or “with-out” by corridor
October 1, 2009 8Georgia Department of
Transportation
Proposed CMC Project
Option 1: 63 centerline
miles including I-285
Option 2: 159 centerline
miles including I-75, I-85
and I-20
GDOT’s CMC Experience
ATLANTA
GDOT’s CMC Experience
Asset Inventory and condition assessment proved to be
one of the most challenging tasks
Maintenance management personnel brought in from around the
State
Provided training to these personnel to identify each asset
along with measurement criteria to develop an overall condition
Gave 30 days to complete this assignment
This information is required to establish performance criteria
GDOT’s CMC Experience
Factors to consider:
$$$$$ / Funding
Service level (existing)
Current resources
Cost comparison
Length of contract
Service level (proposed)
Current system
Employee moral
Thank You
????
1
Turnkey Asset Maintenance
Services
TAMS
April 23, 2009
Robert E. Prezioso, PE
Acting State Maintenance Engineer
2
TAMS
Statewide Turnkey Asset Maintenance Services
3
WHY?
1. Workload exceeded staffing resources
• Sandston/Williamsburg staff reductions
• Same staff responsible for several hundred lane miles of local roads
2. Expiring Public-Private Partnership
• Needed to establish a successful contracting mechanism to replace the
original Asset Management contract with VMS
3. Legislative Mandate
• Virginia legislature passed bill to mandate outsourcing of Interstate
maintenance by July 1, 2009.
4
ADVANTAGES
1. Reduced Agency staffing needs
• Interstate ordinary maintenance = less than 50 VDOT employees
2. Focus on Asset Condition
• Contract language generates a greater focus on asset condition
• Agency forces had too many Priority 1 tasks and could not maintain an
effective proactive program
3. Consistent budget obligation
• Lump sum bids allow for equal annual contract amounts (divided into
equal monthly payments)
5
CHALLENGES
1. Agency staff transition and development• From Project Engineer/Inspector/Maintenance Manager to Business Manager
• No longer doing or directing the work; managing the work
• Advanced inspection protocols; daily/event driven, monthly, annual
• Assess of effectiveness, quality and value of services
• Documenting and implementing areas for improvement
2. Baseline Condition Assessment• Helps build realistic Performance Criteria
• Helps contractor submit an effective bid proposal
3. Contractor Risk• Too much risk to contractor equates to extreme profit or potential default
• Contractor Risk costs agency
4. Unplanned Budget Reductions• Lump sum bids make requests for price reductions difficult
• How do you measure value of service reductions
• Consider Line Item bids• An overly itemized bid request limits the contractors flexibility to achieve their most cost effective
solution
Thank you
Robert E. Prezioso, PEActing State Maintenance Engineer
10/1/2009
1
Asset Maintenance &
Performance Based Contracts
Florida Department of Transportation
Tim Lattner, P.E.
Director, Office of Maintenance
Florida Department of Transportation
April 23, 2009
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Florida DOT Breakdown
7 Districts, 1 Turnpike Enterprise
35 Maintenance Areas
67 Counties
7,448 Employees (10,354 in 2001)
1,950 Maintenance Employees
Florida District Layout
ES
CA
MB
IA
SANTA ROSA
OK
AL
OO
SA WALTON
HOLMES
WASHIN
GTO
N JACKSON
CALH
OUN
BAY
GULF
LIBERTY
GADSDEN
LEON
JEFFERS
ON
WAKULLA
FRANKLIN
MADISON
TAYLORLAFAY
ETTE
SUW
ANN
EE
CO
LU
MB
IA
BAKER
UNIONBRAD
FORD
ALACHUAG
ILCH
RIS
T
LEVY
DIXIEPUTNAM
CLAY ST.JOHNS
DUVAL
NASSAU
HAMILTON
MARION
LAKE
ORANGE
SEMINOLE
VOLUSIA
FLAGLER
BR
EV
AR
D
OSCEOLA
SU
MT
ER
POLK
HILLSBO
ROU
GH
PIN
EL
LA
S
PASCO
HERN ANDO
CITRUS
MANATEE HARDEE
HIGHLANDS
OK
EECH
OBEE
GLADES
HENDRY
COLLIER
LEE
CHARLOTTE
DESOTO
SA
RA
SO
TA
BROWARD
PALM BEACH
MARTIN
ST.LUCIE
INDIANRIVER
MONROE
MIAMI-DADE
33
22
55
77
11 44
66
Turnpike Enterprise
Sun coa st Pa rkw ay
Vete ran s E xpre ssw ay
Saw g rass E xp re ssw a y
H om este ad E x te ns io n
Fl ori da's T ur npike
Sem ino le Exp ressw a y
(Pr oje c t 1 & 2 )
F lo rid a's
Tu rn pike
Pol k P arkw a y
Sou ther n
C onn ec tor
Ex tens i on
#
Bee Lin e W e st
Expr essw ay
District Offices
District 1
District 2District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
Bartow
Lake CityChipley
Fort Lauderdale
DeLand
Miami
Tampa
Turnpike Enterprise Orange
County
Florida Statistics
22nd in Total Area
26th in Land Area
4th in Population
12,066 Centerline Miles
42,022 Lane Miles (Ranks 12th)
3rd in Vehicle Miles Traveled
4th in Bridge Deck Area
Contract Types
1. Traditional
• Work Order Driven
• Project Specific
2. Performance-Based
• Asset Maintenance
• Performance Based
3. Other / Hybrids
• Memorandums of Agreement
• Emergency Contracts / Hurricane Cleanup/ Pre-Event Contracts
• Contractual Service Contracts
Asset Maintenance
and
Performance-Based
Contracting
10/1/2009
2
An Asset Maintenance Contract is a long-term,
performance-based contract encompassing all
(or most) maintenance functions required to
serve the public and maintain the roadways
within specific roadway corridors or entire
geographical areas.
Does not include major roadway resurfacing or
repairs due to damage eligible for FHWA/FEMA
reimbursement.
Used to be called Asset Management
Asset Maintenance Contracting
Other performance-based contracts are shorter
term (prefer 3 to 5 years) focusing on a
particular maintenance functions, such as
aesthetics or roadway striping & RPMs.
Most feature specific list of performance
measures unique to contract requirements,
rather than using the MRP performance
measures.
Recently developed Performance-Based
Contract Scope Customization System
Non-AM Performance-Based Contracting
• Performance Based, not Work Document based
• Long term contracts
– 5 to 10 years (up to 20 years with renewals)
• Fixed lump sum monthly payments
• Dynamic - Asset Maintenance Contracts are written to require Contractor to use the most current policies and procedures – this ensures a “dynamic” contract –website holds complete list of contract documents
• Clear Performance Measures
Key Elements of AM Contracts
• Maintain road system according to performance
measures as outlined in the AM Scope and according to
established Department policies, procedures, and
guidelines
• Evaluate Contractor in 2 ways
– Compare actual performance to performance
measures using the pre-existing MRP concept
– Grade Contractor semi-annually through AM
Monitoring Plan/Contractor Evaluation System (new)
Expectations and Evaluations
• Pre-determined reductions in payment (disincentives) for failure to meet established performance measures– MRP Criteria
– Safety related & other specific criteria• Most specific performance measures primarily related to
safety items
• Additional disincentive categories not covered by MRP
• “Catch-all” disincentive for violation of any policy, procedure, guideline, etc.
• “Catch-all” disincentive for violation of submitted Technical Proposal - Technical proposals are made part of contract terms – they must deliver what they promise
Performance Measures
• Semi-annual AM Monitoring Plan/Contractor Evaluation System– Still under development – about 90% complete
– So far both Industry and Department like the System
• Poor grades can result in:– Declare Contractor Non-Responsible (suspended
from bidding on new jobs)
– Default of current contract
– Difficulty in getting future AM Contracts since past grades/performance will be a factor in scoring technical proposals for future jobs
• Good grade can result in better chances to get future contracts
Performance Measures
10/1/2009
3
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MRP SCORES
MRP NOTES: The Department will hold the retainage withheld from MRP
Periods 1 & 2 until the Department calculates the Final Annual Rating. If the
Final Annual calculated deduction is less than the total accumulated retainage
for the fiscal year, the balance of the retainage will be paid to the Contractor.
If the Final Annual calculated deduction exceeds the total accumulated
retainage for the fiscal year, the balance will be deducted from the
Contractor's payment. All deductions withheld from the Contractor and all
retainage refunds to the Contractor will occur through adjustments to the next
appropriate monthly invoice amount.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Deficiency Identification Deduction/Retainage
a. Failure to meet overall MRP score
requirements
(Periods 1 & 2)
Retain one half percent (.5%) of one-third of the annual contract amount
for each MRP point below procedural requirements for overall MRP
score
b. Substandard MRP for individual
elements (Periods 1 & 2)
Retain one quarter percent (.25%) of one-third of the annual contract
amount for each MRP point below procedural requirements for each
element rating
c. Substandard MRP for individual
characteristics (Periods 1 & 2)
Retain one eighth percent (.125%) of one-third of the annual contract
amount for each MRP point below procedural requirements for each
characteristic rating
d. Failure to meet overall MRP score
requirements
(Final Annual Rating)
Deduct one half percent (.5%) of the annual contract amount for each
MRP point below procedural requirements for overall MRP score
e. Substandard MRP for individual
elements
(Final Annual Rating)
Deduct one quarter percent (.25%) of the annual contract amount for
each MRP point below procedural requirements for each element
rating
f. Substandard MRP for individual
characteristics (Final Annual Rating)
Deduct one eighth percent (.125%) of the annual contract amount for
each MRP point below procedural requirements for each
characteristic rating
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA NOTES:
1) For ALL performance measures identified in all charts found in this scope, the “Time Allowed/Criteria”
is PER APPLICABLE PROCEDURE. If the applicable procedure is non-specific for time allowed or criteria, then use the “Time Allowed/Criteria” given in the applicable chart.
2) For all times allowed in all charts found in this scope, the District Maintenance Engineer/Administrator
may grant a time extension for unusual circumstances if the extension is requested during the original
time period allowed.
3) All deductions withheld from the Contractor will occur through adjustments to the next monthly invoice amount.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
GUARDRAIL
Deficiency Identification Time Allowed/Criteria Deduction
a. Failure to perform timely
inspections
Per Procedure 850-050-003 $500 per day per delinquent
inspection
b. Failure to timely submit
Inspection Sheets/Reports
Due within 15 days after
completion of inspection
$100 per day per delinquent
report
c. Failure to make repairs
identified in Inspection Reports
Within 30 days of identification $500 per day per guardrail
d. Failure to make temporary
safety repairs resulting from incidents
Must secure with proper MOT
before leaving the site
$1,000 per day per guardrail
e. Failure to make permanent
repairs resulting from incidents
Repair within 10 calendar days
of Incident
$1,000 per day per guardrail
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Deficiency Identification Time Allowed/Criteria Deduction
a. Failure to properly respond to
incidents/events as required in
Emergency Management section of this scope or according to the goals
established in the Open Road
Policy.
Per Emergency Management
section requirements
established in this scope and in the Open Road Policy.
$1,000 per hour, prorated, per
incident/event
SUBMISSION OF DEPARTMENT REQUESTED DOCUMENTS
Deficiency Identification Time Allowed/Criteria Deduction
a. Upon Department request, failure to submit
any documents the Contractor is required
to maintain
Submit document by the end of the
business day following the day
of the Department’s request
$100 prorated per business
day per requested
document
• Evaluation of contractor
• Natural disasters (Hurricanes)
• Training program
• Consistency of contract scopes
• Risk
• Control
Challenges
Performance Expectations
• Establish clear performance measures that allow
changes to statewide practices updated during
the contract period (Dynamic)
• Use existing performance evaluation methods
(MRP) wherever possible
• Avoid subjective performance requirements
• Require the Contractor to self evaluate and
report performance results (call logs, emergency
response)
Best Practices / Lessons Learned
10/1/2009
4
Administration & Project Management
• Build on the successes of previous contracts
• Expect (allow) the Asset Maintenance Contractor to do his job, don’t micromanage
• Do not over-inspect!!
• Hold Asset Maintenance Contractor responsible for record keeping, storage & retrieval
• Incorporate all active traditional maintenance contracts into new AM Contracts
• Carefully consider how to handle Emergency Response and Recovery
Best Practices / Lessons Learned
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Asset Maintenance Contract Status
• Early 2004, $484 Million in 17 executed contracts
– $64 Million annually
• Early 2006, $700 Million in 23 executed contracts
– $95 Million annually
• Currently, $900 Million in 30 executed contracts
– $129 Million annually
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Statewide Balance Charts for Expenditures in
In-house, Traditional & AM Contracts
1994
60%
40%
In-house
TraditionalContract
AssetMaintenance
2002
62%
30%
8%
met goals in 2009
40%
20%
40%
2006
50%
21%29%
2005
57%
20%23%
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Rural Limited Access
Rural ArterialUrban Limited
AccessUrban Arterial
Roadway Total
Number of Rest Areas
Non-AM 639.0 4957.9 289.2 3210.6 9096.7 14
AM 835.2 1029.0 295.7 435.0 2594.9 53
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Centerline Miles
Statewide Roadway Maintenance AM
Non-AM
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Non-Movable Bridges
Movable Bridges
Total BridgesNon-Movable
Deck Area (sf )
Movable Deck Area
(sf )
Total Deck Area (sf )
Non-AM 7248 61 7309 96,032,568 2,404,819 98,437,387
AM 4124 90 4214 56,141,340 3,466,191 59,607,531
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Statewide Bridge Inspections AM
Non-AM
Maintenance Rating
Program (MRP)
10/1/2009
5
Maintenance Rating Program
Maintenance Rating Program (MRP) is a method of
conduction a visual and technical evaluation of actual
highway maintenance conditions
• By Statute, 100% of roads on the State Highway
System must achieve the maintenance standard
• The maintenance standard for every State roadway is
achieving an MRP target score of 80 or above
• Operating Policy: Provide full funding required to
achieve the MRP target score for 100% of State roads
Maintenance Rating Program
Each District is evaluated 3 times per year
Each District has a rating team composed of two
team members
Each sample point is 1/10th mile (528 feet) long
Evaluations are conducted on foot for detailed
visual and instrumental analysis
Each 528-foot roadway segment is evaluated
against established standards and given a Pass
or Fail rating for each characteristic
Maintenance Rating Program
Random sample points are generated from RCI
data at Central Office
Each District prints their random sample points
on a coding form, sorted by:
• maintenance area
• roadway ID #
• location mile post
• facility type
Pass/Fail ratings are recorded on paper for later
entry into the mainframe MRP computer
Maintenance Rating Program
The roadways within a maintenance area are
divided into four roadway classifications (facility
types):
- Rural Limited Access (Interstates outside of cities)
- Urban Limited Access (Interstates within cities)
- Rural Arterial (All non-Interstate outside of cities)
- Urban Arterial (All non-Interstate within cities)
30 points per facility type per maintenance area
Maintenance Rating Program
MRP is divided into five categories (elements)
and each element is further divided into
characteristics:
- Roadway (9 characteristics)
- Roadside (5 characteristics)
- Traffic Services (9 characteristics)
- Drainage (6 characteristics)
- Vegetation and Aesthetics (7 characteristics)
Maintenance Rating Program
All characteristics are evaluated against an
established performance standard. These
standards are described in great detail in the
MRP Handbook
Where the MRP Handbook does not apply,
Department Design Standards are used
10/1/2009
6
Maintenance Rating Program
Each characteristic is assigned a weighted factor
based on its importance to the safety and
preservation of the roadway system
Each element is also assigned a weighted factor
placing more importance on safety items
Maintenance Rating Program
Numerical ratings (MRP Scores) are calculated
for each facility type
Scores for facility types are weighted according to
total number of miles of each facility type
An overall MRP Score is calculated from the MRP
Score of each facility type
The overall MRP Scores for maintenance areas
are rolled up into an overall Statewide MRP
Score, which is then reported to the Executive
Committee as Florida’s “Report Card”
• Flexible Pothole- No defect is greater
than ½ square foot in area and 1 ½ inches
deep. No previous base is exposed in any
hole.
• Flexible Edge Raveling- 90% of the total
roadway edge is free of raveling. No
continuous section of edge raveling 4
inches or wider exceeds 25 feet in length.
Roadway Characteristics Inventory (RCI)MRP Performance Criteria
• Raised Pavement Markers- 70% of the required markers are functional (reflective). No more than 100 feet of continuous centerline or lane line is without a reflective marker.
• Guardrail- Each single run functions as intended.
• Signs (Greater than 30 sq. ft.)- 85% of the signs are functioning as intended.
MRP Performance Criteria
• Inlets- 85% of the opening is not
obstructed.
• Side/Cross Drain- 60% of the cross-
sectional area of each pipe is free of
obstructions and functions as intended.
• Litter Removal- The volume of litter does
not exceed 3 cubic feet per 1 acre
excluding all travel way pavement.
MRP Performance Criteria
• Turf Condition- Turf in the mowing area is 75% free of undesired vegetation.
• Landscaping- Vegetation is maintained in a healthy, attractive condition.
• Slope Mowing- Not more than 2% of vegetation exceeds 24 inches high. This excludes allowable seed stalks and decorative flowers allowed to remain for aesthetics. The area shall be evaluated in accordance with the mowing guide as a minimum.
MRP Performance Criteria
10/1/2009
7
Maintenance Rating Program
MRP Scores provide information used to
schedule and prioritize maintenance activities
The evaluated characteristics correspond to
features in the RCI system and to activities in our
Maintenance Management System (MMS)
MRP Scores are compared with work efforts from
the maintenance areas captured in MMS
Reports are generated to compare MMS-reported
work efforts to an overall MRP Score of 80
Questions?
Tim Lattner
Phone: (850) 410-5757
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1
Slide 1
Performance-Based
Contracting for Maintenance
Overview of Ontario, Canada
NCHRP 20-24(61) Executive Forum
April 23, 2009
Tampa, FloridaSlide 2
Contents
• Ontario Overview
• Current Contract Models
– Managed Outsourcing
– Area Maintenance Contracts
• Winter Performance
– Measures and Outcomes
• Sustainability
• Lessons Learned
Slide 3
Province of Ontario
• 1.1 million km² (416,000) square miles)
• System:
– 39,658 lane-km of highway (24,642 lane-miles)
– 16,602 centre-line km (10,316 centre-line miles)
• Over 2,500 bridges/structures
• 29 Remote Airports and 8 Ferry Services
Slide 4
Province of Ontario
• Values:
– Replacement: $58B
– Current: $43B
– Book: $12.5B
• Capital Program:
– 09/10 - $2.5B
• Maintenance and Operations
– 09/10 - $287M (includes approved and proposed)
Slide 5
Province of Ontario
• Highways carry about $3B daily
• Fourteen international crossings - $325B/yr
• Population approximately 12.7 million
• 10.6M registered vehicles
• 8.9M licensed drivers
• Amongst the safest roads in North America
• Road liability assigned to the ministry by statute
Slide 6
Maintenance
Routine Maintenance• Pothole repair
• Shoulder grading
• Guide rail and fence repair
• Traffic signal & illumination maintenance and repair
• Sign replacement
• Pavement marking
• Culvert & drainage maintenance
• Grass cutting & weed control
• Bridge cleaning & minor repair
• Debris removal
• Road sweeping
Patrolling
• Visual inspection
Emergency Response
• Collisions, spills
Winter Maintenance
• Plowing, liquids,
sanding and salting
Maintenance Excludes: Resurfacing, Rehabilitation or Reconstruction
2
Slide 7
Current Maintenance Contract Models
• Managed Outsourcing– 7 areas, 40% of system
– Each area about 600 lane-miles in size
– Ministry staff patrol highways and direct work
– Contractors provide services
– Many small, functional contracts (activity based)
– Fixed term, e.g. 3 to 7 years
• Area Maintenance Contracts – 16 areas, 60% of system
– Each area 200 to 750 lane-miles in size
– Contractor plans and delivers work
– Lump Sum, fixed term, e.g. 7 to 10 years
– 73% of province-wide winter fleet
Slide 8
Current Maintenance Contract Models
• 1,030 pieces of winter equipment
• Approx 570,000 tonnes of salt/yr
– 628,000 tons
• Approx 640,000 tonnes of sand/yr
– 705,000 tons
• 24,000,000 litres of liquid salt
– 6.3 million US gallons
Slide 9 Slide 10
Performance-Based Contracts
• Executive decision to proceed
• Language developed over several months– Internal expertise
• Consultation and input from industry and ministry experts
• The Work is the same
• Appropriate outcome measures lead to a high degree of confidence that products perform as intended– Contractor performance based on results achieved
not methods used
Slide 11
Performance-Based Contracts
• Key Objectives/Benefits– One-window approach for maintenance and small
capital work
– Utilize ISO Certification• ISO 9000-2008 for Quality
• ISO 14001-2004 for Environmental
– Innovation
• Schedule– First Contract Tendered Nov 2008
– Six bids – one successful, March 2009
– Next three within a few months
– Remaining 12 over next five years
Slide 12
Performance Requirement
• Scope and Definitions
• Contractors Responsibilities and
Obligations
• Outcome Targets
• Outcome Target Indicators
• Conformance to Outcome Targets
• Consequences for Non-Conformance
3
Slide 13
Winter Performance
• Largest cost area
• High public visibility
• Bare Pavement Performance Measure
– Publicly reported
– Target is to achieve bare pavement within
class standard 90% of the time
• Outcome targets set to achieve desired
results
Slide 14
Winter Outcome Targets
• Circuit Times
• Equipment Utilization
• Application Rates for Materials (Sand/Salt)
• Continuous Plowing
• Echelon Plowing
• Level of Service
Slide 15
Consequences for Non-
Conformance
• Circuit times
– $5,000 if fail to complete circuit
• Equipment Utilization
– $1,000 if not fully utilizing equipment
• Application Rates
– $1,000 if outside minimum allowable rate
Slide 16
Early Indications with AMC 3.x
• Industry understands and can bid
• Favourable price
• Innovations will come
• Evaluation process can be streamlined
• Flexible structure for scope additions,
innovations or new requirements
• Confidential consultation critical to success
• Interest from international bidders
Slide 17
Sustainability
• Industry– Competitive
– Relationship Management
– Performance Ratings
• Contract Management– Standards
– Oversight and Administration
– Funding commitment
• Knowledge Management– Traditional versus Modern
Slide 18
Lessons Learned
• Longer term=more certainty, better prices
• Contractors improve with experience
• Innovation is possible
• Industry health and competition critical
• Management of long-term relationship
– Consultation is vital
• Not a construction contract or relationship
4
Slide 19
Suggestions
• Communicate and cooperate
• Innovate
• Manage the issues
• Be open to industry’s interests
• Plan for the future
The first contract is only the beginning…
Slide 20
Suggestions
• Long and deliberate process
• Implement gradually
• Talk to others to learn
• Ensure solid executive support and
direction
Slide 21
Summary
• Two maintenance contract models in
practice for 100% of the network
• Shift to performance-based is underway
– More efficient, timely and flexible
– Service provider is accountable
– How the Work is measured changes
– Outcome based
Slide 22
The End
• Thank you!
1
AMOTIA, Inc.
Association for Managementand
Operations of Transportation Infrastructure Assets, Inc.
2
AMOTIA, Inc.
Today’s Agenda
Who is AMOTIA?
What is PBMC?
Gary: Present some challenges to
having a successful contract/project
and ways to address them.
3
AMOTIA, Inc.
PBMC Executive Workshop
-- April 2006
“Do you have an association with whom we can work? If not, when can we expect one?”
-- Don Hillis, MO DOT
4
AMOTIA, Inc.
“No we don’t but we should.”
5
AMOTIA, Inc.
So …• A couple of leaders
• A little seed money
• An Interim Director
• An association lawyer
And …
• Association for Management and
Operations of Transportation
Infrastructure Assets, Inc.
6
AMOTIA, Inc.
Objective 1
• Serve as the industry voice in the
fast-growing field of private sector
management and operations of
transportation infrastructure assets.
2
7
AMOTIA, Inc.
Objective 2
• Provide a forum for members to
exchange ideas.
8
AMOTIA, Inc.
Objective 3
• Advocate policies and practices that
help members work cooperatively and
efficiently with infrastructure owners.
9
AMOTIA, Inc.
Objective 4
• Promote the use of performance
measures, creative risk allocation,
and other techniques that stimulate
creativity and innovation, resulting in
safe and cost-effective management
of owner assets.
10
AMOTIA, Inc.
Today’s Agenda
Who is AMOTIA?
What is PBMC?
Gary: Present
some challenges to having a
successful contract/project and
ways to address them.
11
PBMC Definition Outcome-based contract focusing on meeting performance
requirements for assets within a fixed corridor for a fixed
time period for a fixed price.
The Agency identifies the performance requirements.
The contractor determines how the work will be
accomplished and with what resources to meet the
performance requirements.
AMOTIA, Inc.
12
PBMC Framework
Multi-year, lump-sum contract
Qualification-based, negotiated
Bundled services (no unit prices)
Monthly payments
Performance Standards w/Measurements
AMOTIA, Inc.
3
13
AMOTIA, Inc.
• Performance-based Maintenance
• Performance-based Operations and Management
• Direct Contract
• Public Private Partnership
Main Products Delivery Method
14
AMOTIA, Inc.
Today’s Agenda
Who is AMOTIA?
What is PBMC?
Gary: Present some challenges to having a
successful contract/project and ways to address
them.
15
AMOTIA, Inc.
Basic Premise of PBMC
Qualification-based
Contracting
Performance specifications
Costs Estimates
Level of Service
Joint Understanding of Risk
Willingness to be Innovative
Challenges
Bundled Work vs. Line Item
Length of Contract
Directed vs. Managed Work
Emergency / Disaster Services
Snow/Ice
Hurricanes
Working in Partnership
See Page 30 of the Report: Fact, Fiction, Fear
16
Innovative Spirit
“AASHTO member states must embrace new
strategies that demand accountability and
performance measurement.”
Pete Rahn, MO DOT, AASHTO – October 2007
AMOTIA, Inc.
17
Risks ManagementForce
Account
100
RISKTO
PUBLIC SECTOR
0RISK TO PRIVATE SECTOR 100
Maintenance
Contracts
PBC
Concessions
Decreasing
Public Risks,
Increasing
Private Risks
BOO
18
AMOTIA, Inc.
Solutions Benefits: Go from Perceived to Actual
Problems: Go from Perception to Truth
Joint Training and Education
Case Studies and Lessons Learned
Recommended Practices / Specifications / Positions
FHWA/DOT/AMOTIA Steering Committee (?) Demonstration / Trial Projects / Documentation
4
19
PBMC Benefits: Fact or Fiction? Purchase management system
Focus on outcomes, not input
Money goes where needed
Allows private sector purchasing rules
Saves direct/indirect costs or get better value
Consistently meet the performance standards
Allows owner more time to focus on governing and
managing
AMOTIA, Inc.
20
PBMC Benefits: Fact or Fiction?
Gain Innovation and Flexibility
Work planning
Work approach
Hiring (and firing)
Purchasing
Materials and Equipment
AMOTIA, Inc.
21
PBMC Benefits: Fact or Fiction?
Focus on Service Level Improvement
Monies reserve for maintenance (lock-up)
Owner Reallocation of Work Force
Links Bridge Inspection w/ Bridge Repairs
AMOTIA, Inc.
22
PBMC Problems: Page 30
Nearly all are perceptions
Nearly all can be answered by either
experience or by agreement
Practice makes perfect!!
AMOTIA, Inc.
23
AMOTIA, Inc.
Solutions Focus on the Actual/Perceived Benefits
Joint Training and Education
Understand Performance
Understand Performance Contracting / Specifications
Understand Partnering / Monitoring
Case Studies and Lessons Learned
Recommended Practices / Specifications
FHWA/DOT/AMOTIA Steering Committee (?) Demonstration / Trial Projects / Documentation
24
AMOTIA, Inc.
Two Perceived Problems Insufficient contractor capacity
Inability to achieve sufficient competition
FHWA/DOT/AMOTIA Steering Committee Resolve the outstanding issues
Promote & guide projects
Conduct joint training, guidelines, practices
Will lead to a more viable AND larger contractor pool .
5
25
Focus on Future
D-B-M-O-F / MAC Concept / Alliance Contracting
Solving more than just a funding need
Long term focus on maintenance & operations
Focus Today: $$
Focus Tomorrow: $$ plus operations, maintenance, capital
improvement, and turnback
PBMC is just a small step in this direction
AMOTIA, Inc.
26
Final Thought
AMOTIA supports Balanced Maintenance
DOT Work Force
Unit Price Private Sector Contracts
PBMC Private Sector Contracts
AMOTIA, Inc.
27
AMOTIA, Inc.
Ted Ferragut, P.E.
Executive Director
202-744-4175
www.amotia.org
1
NCDOT’s Performance Based
Contracting Experience in Charlotte
Jennifer Brandenburg, PE
State Road Maintenance Engineer
July 21, 2009
Overview
• Performance Base Contracting in NC
• Project Scope
• Contract Development
• Risk Analysis
• Assessing Performance
• Contract Status
• Next Steps
• Lessons Learned
• Jennifer Brandenburg– State Road Maintenance Engineer
– (919) 733-3725
• Lonnie Watkins– Maintenance Systems Engineer
– (919) 212-6000
• Jonathan Arnold– Infrastructure Management Engineer
– (919) 212-6060
Authors NCDOT’s Introduction
• NC Senate Bill 622 of the 2005 General
Assembly stated:“The Department of Transportation may implement up to
two performance based contracts for routine
maintenance and operations, exclusive of resurfacing.
Selection of firms to perform this work shall be made
using a best value procurement process”
Other Driving Factors
• Growing highway system
• No additional employees
• Increased public demand for service
• Successful in other states
• Good comparisons:– Cost to obtain a level of service vs. amount of effort
– Contract vs. DOT cost to maintain a section of roadway
Benefits
• Fixed cost over the life of the contract
• One single point of contact vs. multiple contacts
• Utilizes and grows small businesses
• Utilizes QC/QA process
• Allows DOT employees to focus on other routes
• Contractor can focus on a defined segment of highway
2
Challenges
• Requires dedicated funding for life of project
• Hard to quantify performance measures
• Major change in business practices
– loss of control over contractor
– shifting of risk and responsibility
– “we’ve never done it this way before”
Project Scope
Items of work included:
• Pavement maintenance– Patching
– Paved shoulders
– Crack sealing
• Roadside maintenance– Turf condition and mowing
– Plant bed maintenance
– Litter pickup
• Roadway maintenance– Shoulders
– Drainage
– Guardrail/barriers
Items of work included:
• Traffic maintenance– Overhead signs
– Ground mounted signs
– Pavement markings
– Pavement markers
• Bridge maintenance– Bridge components
– Sweeping
– Damage repair
– Noise and retaining walls
Items of work not included:
• Snow & Ice (alt. bid item)
• IMAP and Incident
Response
• ITS devices
• Rest areas
• Wildflower beds
• Some roadway and sign
lighting
Contract Development
• Team Approach– SRMU
– Other Central Raleigh units
– Division experts
– Other State experiences & documents
• Design-Build model– Process for qualifications (RFQ)
– Shortlist firms
– Request for proposals (RFP)
– Review of technical proposals and cost proposals separate
– Best and final offer
3
July
2005
Legislation
Passed
Sept.
2005
Contract
Development
June
2006
Contract
Advertised
Dec.
2006
Open
Cost
Proposals
Jan.
2007
Best and
Final Offer
Taking Our Time
March
2007
Contract
Awarded
May
2007
Partnering
Session
July
2007
Date of
Availability
July 2007
Contractor
Began
Work
Risky Business
• Risk
– Snow & Ice removal
– Damage reimbursement
– Incident response
• Cost
– Bonding
– Existing conditions
– Untested performance measures
– Penalties for non-performance
Payment for Performance
Element RatingPayment
(% of Element Value)
At or above target 100%
1-5 below target 75%
6-10 below target 50%
Greater than 10below target
0%
Partial PaymentBased on Performance
• Sampling
– Linear features assessed in random 0.2 mile sample
sections– i.e. Guardrail, Median Barrier, Pavement, Mowing, etc.
– Point features not evenly distributed are sampled
from an element inventory.– Pipes, Drop Inlets, Signs, Noise Walls, etc.
Assessing Performance
• Sample size methodology developed by Dr. Jesus M. de la Garza (VPI)– Used by VDOT on their TAMS contracts
– Sample size controlled by condition of element at last assessment
• i.e. Poor Condition -> Large Sample Size
Good Condition -> Small Sample Size
– Added 10% to the sample size
– 95% confidence in results (typ within +-5%)• Penalties were waived for elements with high confidence
intervals.
Assessment Sampling
4
Assessment Tools
• Initial assessment (Spring 2007)
– Paper forms
– Recreational grade GPS
– Introduced error
• Subsequent assessments
– PDA devices
– Recreational grade GPS
– Still errors
• Fall 2008 assessment
– Tablet PCs
– ArcGIS/ArcPAD software
– Bluetooth grade GPS receivers
– Better quality data
Working Well Assessments
Pavement
75
80
85
90
95
100
SPRING 07 RATING
(PRE-AWARD)
FALL 07 RATING SPRING 08 RATING FALL 08 RATING
Co
nd
itio
n R
ati
ng
A sphalt P avement R epair
C o ncrete P avement R epair
P avement Sho ulder
C o ndit io n
Assessments
Shoulder & Ditch
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
SPRING 07 RATING
(PRE-AWARD)
FALL 07 RATING SPRING 08 RATING FALL 08 RATING
Co
nd
itio
n R
ati
ng
Low Shoulder
High Shoulder
Lateral Ditches
Assessments
Roadside
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
SPRING 07 RATING
(PRE-AWARD)
FALL 07 RATING SPRING 08 RATING FALL 08 RATING
Co
nd
itio
n R
ati
ng
Mow ing
Litter & Debris Control
Landscape Beds
5
Assessments
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
SPRING 07 RATING (PRE-AWARD)
FALL 07 RATING SPRING 08 RATING FALL 08 RATING
Bridges
Bridge Decks Superstructure Substructure
PBMC Rating and Target Trends
76.2777.76
84.83
78.68
88.59
90.64 90.64
70.00
75.00
80.00
85.00
90.00
95.00
100.00
SPRING 07 FALL 07 SPRING 08 FALL 08
Assessment Period
Ra
tin
g
rating
target
Assessing Performance
Performance Targets
• “Feasonable” test
• Targets were set high
• Q and A sessions
• Onsite meetings to review targets
• Cooperative approach
Contract Status
• Partnering workshop April 2009
• Mutual termination agreement May 2009
• Punchlist provided to contractor June 2009
• Contract ended July 1, 2009
Charlotte Scope v2.0 Next Steps
• Refining project scope July 2009
• Reviewing/revising performance targets July – Aug. 2009
• Version 2.0 advertisement Sept. 2009
• Contractor selection process begins
Oct. 2009
• Contract awarded January 2010
• Contract availability April 2010
6
Lessons Learned
• Start early– Find a mentor
– Bring in field staff early
– Develop a detailed scope early in the process
– Be reasonable with timelines
• Communicate– Listen to the contracting community
– There is no such thing as too much detail
– Conduct an initial assessment and take pictures
– Communicate early and often with all levels of management
– Be open with front line employees
• Be smart– Use technology
– Be reasonable about the size and scope of the project
– Continually reevaluate risk
Questions?